Federal government court lifts part of court order against Trump’s latest travel ban

Drew Angerer/Getty Pictures Federal court lifts component of court order against Trump’s latest travelling ban Appeals court lifts component of Hawaii judge’s order blocking Trump directive, but Maryland judge’s parallel injunction remains to be in place

A federal appeals court on Monday lifted component of a court order blocking President Donald Trump from proceeding with the 3rd version of his travel ban policy, but the effort remains on hold because of a separate injunction.

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel granted some of the Justice Department’s request for an emergency stay of a Hawaii federal judge’s order that prevented the Trump administration from moving forward with plans to limit issuance of visas to six majority-Muslim countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

Story Continued Below

The ruling is a partial, temporary – and, for the moment, ineffectual – victory for what Trump says is an effort to restrict immigration to fight terrorism. Critics contain blasted the many iterations of the policy as thinly-veiled versions of the Muslim ban Trump promised while a applicant last year.

For the moment, the ruling won’t have any impact because a Maryland judge also issued an injunction like the one from the Hawaii judge. The Maryland judge’s injunction is still in place.

The most reliable politics newsletter. Join POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, each morning – in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you consent to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The Ninth Circuit judges would allow Trump’s policy to go forward with exemptions for foreigners with strong U.S. ties, like the approach the Supreme Court come early july let an earlier variation of the proposal get implemented aside from those with “a bona fide romance” to the U.S.

If the Ninth Circuit ruling is implemented, it would allow visa applicants with relatives in the U.S. along with those with jobs, business ties or connections to educational organizations to take pleasure from a carve-out from different limitations imposed by Trump. Trump’s latest system includes some very similar exemptions, but they are narrower than what the court’s order would dictate.

The three appeals court judges who ruled Monday – President Bill Clinton appointees Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez – didn’t offer any rationale because of their decision, but the order cites the interim decision the Supreme Court issued in June on the sooner version of the ban.

The ruling can be temporary. The Ninth Circuit the following month will notice arguments on whether Honolulu-based mostly U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson’s injunction should be left set up or overturned. Those arguments happen to be set to occur in Seattle on Dec. 6 before the same three judges.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, who’s pressing the challenge in the Ninth Circuit, said his business office is focusing on the arguments the following month.

Morning Shift newsletter Get the latest on work and immigration, every weekday morning hours – in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you consent to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

“Today’s decision today closely tracks assistance previously issued by the Supreme Court. I’m pleased that friends and family ties to the U. S., including grandparents, will get respected,” Chin explained in a statement.

Spokespeople for the Light Property and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Richmond-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals hasn’t yet ruled on the government’s request to stay the injunction that Greenbelt, Maryland-based U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang released last month.

Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit has decided that it will hear that case at a sitting of most but two of its 15 active judges in Dec. 8. Such en banc sittings are exceptional, but the court conducted one previously this year to hear arguments about the second variation of Trump’s ban.

Read more on: http://www.politico.com